this will be an inflection point for the site, a downturn from which they will not recover, if they aim to be a core community for photographers on the web.

no constructive criticism you say? ok. for goodness sakes, click through from a forum posting to gallery images and there's no click path to return to the posting. sheesh, and so much AJAX, you can't just hit the browser back button. extremely poorly thought out design.

It's odd to see you preannouncing all these changes, without letting us try it on a beta basis. Did I miss it in the long text? I agree about the blue on black, violates so many conventions, why would you do that? blue's contrast color is yellow, not black!

Roland Karlsson: I will say it once again. The only really interesting point is if good photographers gets this unique camera and makes outstanding photographs. Thats it really. If this camera only is bought by rich people that cannot make images, then its no fun at all.

The big drawback of this B&W camera, compared to film, is DR. Some B&W films had unbelieving DR. For color images, huge DR is hard to utilize as the images become strange if you do too much HDR work. But for B&W, there is nothing called too much. Its total freedom when doing manipulation.

you are confusing ISO and dynamic range. the advantage in ISO is about 2 to 2+1/2 stops. Dynamic range should be significantly higher than that. However, it is frustrating that we haven't seen good demonstration of that. dpreview had the camera but, I suppose because it's preproduction, did nothing to assess it.

Prophotogo: Funny how after every Leica review comes all the negative Leica bashing comments and always be people who have never used or even held a Leica, why?

If someone calls a Leica M body "archaic" they have zero idea what Leica is about they simply look at the price and try to match it against a Nikon or Canon DLSR.

Someone else said "buy a D4" why? can you really not see the point of Leica M ownership? lugging a D4 around for the day is the opposite!

Like I said all the Weekend Warriors and wannabe pros will always knock Leica as they can't afford or justify them, so if you have zero knowledge about something then why do you comment? I know zero about brain surgery so i won't comment on that and knock it!

Truth of the matter is that Leica M use is the most purest and rewarding in photography, the fact that it does not have Live View, Face Recognition and a host of other useless features is welcome and might even make you concentrate on actually taking a decent picture!

what's hilarious is the accusation that leica photographers are the ultimate gear heads. most of what you're reading here are attacks based on gear stats, with an almost pure focus on the sensor.

it's all about high ISO. the ultimate gear head delusion.

even on that front, bottom line, no competitor has come close to leica's CCD at base iso in a full frame mirrorless camera in almost three years.

JacquesBalthazar: I have been using Ms since the early Nineties (M6), and l lusted for one for 15 years before that. It was really "outdated" at the time. Objectively, the Leica M was seen by many as "outdated" already in the Sixties... So you either look at it that way, or accept that the M's concept is in a place and time of its own. I accept that. The big problem with the M these days is not its "outdated" core design, as that design (optical rangefinder, mechanical precision, modus operandi) is precisely why people love it, but the big problem is the sensor.

In the film days, the M's excellence was upgraded every time Kodak, Fuji or Agfa came out with a new film. From the Tri-X of the early days to the Velvia or Portra of the end of the millennium, things just got better and better, even if you were using a 1956 M3.

In this century, the M's superb construction and wonderful mechano-optical engineering is plain overkill in view of sensor obsolescence.

Marty4650, the M series is designed for constant carry and hard and tumble use. while not weather sealed, they can take a remarkable beating. 50 years of use in 2 years, that's the life of many a leica photographer. I carry it at least 20-30 times more often than i've ever carried a DSLR, and to placed I'd never bring the heavy equipment.

Josh152: The only reasons to get an M9 is if you are in love with the rangefinder focusing or want a smallish camera and HAVE to have a 35mm equivalent sized sensor (even if it is a mediocre one). If you don't meet one or both those two requirements then there are much better choices at much lower prices.

seviewlee, sounds like you need to educate yourself about CCD vs. CMOS at low ISOs.

photomeme: What's really sad here is that dpreview never reviewed the Leica M9 or M9P. So they finally put together a kit near the end of the product's life cycle? An "experience" review, without a single technical test or data. Meh. This is not the dpreview I remember. Really lowers them in my estimation.

What may have begun as a quick 'suck up' to Leica to get premium reviewer access to the new products seems to have gone a bit awry.

Viramati: Some of the reviewers here seem to really have little real experience of using the M9. for example changing iso is so easy.1 press iso button2. turn thumb-wheel3. iso is changed Couldn't be simplerthe leica must have the easiest and most uncluttered menu system of any digital camera I know

remarkable, Diallo won't admit dpreview screwed up in its initial criticism of the iso control. the team spent so little time with the m9, they didn't understand the dial functionality.

photomeme: What's really sad here is that dpreview never reviewed the Leica M9 or M9P. So they finally put together a kit near the end of the product's life cycle? An "experience" review, without a single technical test or data. Meh. This is not the dpreview I remember. Really lowers them in my estimation.

Diallo:

no one is asking you to 'fix' what happened two and a half years ago. there are others around you, and Phil Askey, who bear responsibility for neglecting the Leica M9 for so long. (your silly and uncalled for 'time machine' comment just demeans dpreview).

with so much leica expertise among your users, the errors and omissions from the article you did issue are disappointing. it's as if the site hasn't learned a thing about the crowdsourcing technologies that have been around longer than the M9.

What's really sad here is that dpreview never reviewed the Leica M9 or M9P. So they finally put together a kit near the end of the product's life cycle? An "experience" review, without a single technical test or data. Meh. This is not the dpreview I remember. Really lowers them in my estimation.

Noirist: The most ridiculous thing about Leica-M is that you can easily purchase an M9 or M9-P body but it is almost impossible to purchase the high quality lenses like the 50mm f1.4 or the 35mm f1.4. So even if you're willing to shell out a ridiculous amount of money for a Leica-M, you can't.

what's ridiculous about that?

demand has far outstripped all of leica's projections. that's how successful the m9 has been.

leica has been able to ramp up m9 production faster than glass production.

Samtendo 64: Wow, those files are not particularly impressive... Is this the lowest quality full frame-sensor on the market right now?

Even some of the ISO160 shots are very noisy and ISO2500 is absolutely horrible. The only good thing seems to be resolution at base ISO, but buy any of the current full frame cameras, downsize the files to 18MP and you get equal or better detail without all that noise.

And maybe it's a focusing issue, but many of the photos taken at large apertures are pretty darn soft.

I know IQ is not everything, but I would have expected better from Leica.

I pity everyone who shells out the money for this camera with its ancient electronics and sensor and then need to tell themselves esoteric arguments about "3D pop" and the "Leica-look" (which only become visible once you transfered your money to Leica) to make themselves feel better about the money they wasted.

Marty4650: What we have here is an exceptionally well made obsolete product.

I actually own and love a Leica M3, but the rangefinder design just doesn't cut it anymore. In it's day, it was the ideal compact 35mm camera. Today, the MILC cameras do it better, and at a much more reasonable cost.

Frankly, I'd rather have my Olympus EP1 and $9,500 in my pocket than a brand new Leica M9 plus lens. In many respects the EP1 will outperform the M9, but it just won't have the same prestige or status.

Lets be honest for a moment. If this very same Leica M9 had a Samsung badge on it, then no one would pay more than $800 to buy it.

This isn't about photography, it's about jewelry.

Leica accomplished a remarkable engineering feat, tying these lenses mirrorless to a contemporary digital sensor, without antialiasing filter, with low artificating (a bit of moire, besting the D800E just released). that puts them way ahead of all competitors in mirrorless.

it's the industry's most impressive miniaturization.

it's sensor Achilles Heel is higher ISO. But more important, for many applications, is class leading base ISO for full frame.

Josh152: The only reasons to get an M9 is if you are in love with the rangefinder focusing or want a smallish camera and HAVE to have a 35mm equivalent sized sensor (even if it is a mediocre one). If you don't meet one or both those two requirements then there are much better choices at much lower prices.